High Court
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD28 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1789 OF 20241Prasad Kalidas More,Age 21 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Mehkar, Tq. Bhalki,Dist. Bidar.At present r/o Venkateshnagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 2Shailesh Shivshankar Marwade,Age 24 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Khedkarwadi, Tq. Loha,Dist. Nanded. At present r/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 3Kaustubh Venkatrao Pawar,Age 25 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 4Abhishek Shrikant Satale,Age 25 yrs., Occ. Labour,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 5Arvind Gajanan Kholgadage,Age 28 yrs., Occ. Labour,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 6Sachin Gajanan Kholgadage,Age 26 yrs., Occ. Labour,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 7Mamta w/o Arvind Kholgadage,Age 24 yrs., Occ. Household,
Legal Reasoning
728_Cri.Appln_1789_2024deceased, but that does not mean that it was the outcome of blackmailingand why she should then blackmail the deceased. None of the applicants hadany reason to think that deceased should commit suicide. Therefore, evenprima facie the ingredients of offence are not getting attracted. ApplicantNo.8 himself is also a member of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, theprovisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act will not get attracted against him and for even others caste ofdeceased what was not an issue. 5Per contra, learned APP has strongly opposed the application.He submitted that it appears that deceased had some sexual problem and hewas making search on the point on the social platform. The medical reportsof deceased appeared to be normal. But it appears that present applicantshad hacked the social media accounts of deceased and from the history of hissearch they used to blackmail him. There is evidence regarding transfer ofmoney by deceased to some of the applicants and most importantly thedeceased has left the suicide note, in which clearly he has blamed presentapplicants. The statements of witnesses, especially the sister of deceased,wherein she has stated that on 19.11.2023 Vikram had given her call fromthe mobile phone of brother Suraj and had informed as to how presentapplicants used to tease him and give mental stress to him. She has stated 828_Cri.Appln_1789_2024that he was on talking terms with applicant No.7 and she knew aboutphysical problem of Vikram. But she was then demanding money fromdeceased. Vikram has then given amount on Phonepe account of herhusband Arvind and brother-in-law Sachin. Applicant No.7 was blackmailinghim. He had told that applicant No.8 Amol had created Facebook accountand Instagram account of deceased Vikram in his mobile and for that purposehe had the E-mail ID of deceased. He has then as it appears that had givenID of deceased to others and also the password, whereupon they werehacking the mobile of deceased and watching the history of searches made byVikram. Upon the said history they used to then teasing him. Even brotherSuraj has also given the same story and, therefore, this is supporting tosuicide note. Deceased appears to have consulted Dr. Rajesh Rathi of ApexClinic, who is Psychiatry, Sexologist and De-addiction Specialist from Nagpur.The bank account details have also been taken and, therefore, there issufficient evidence to take cognizance of offence and, therefore, this is not afit case where this Court should interfere. 6Before turning to the facts of the case, we would like to considerthe legal position. In recent decision in Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. the Stateof Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024, decidedon 18th August 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered many 928_Cri.Appln_1789_2024leading cases, i.e., the decision in Ude Singh and Others. vs. State of Haryana[(2019) 17 SCC 301], Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2017)7 SCC 78], Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707], S.S.Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190], Chitresh KumarChopra vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605], Madan Mohan Singhvs. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628], Prakash and others vs. State ofMaharashtra and another [2024 SCC OnLine 3835], State of West Bengal vs.Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73]. After taking into consideration all thesecases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Abhinav Mohan Delkar (supra),observed thus :“22.What comes out essentially from the various decisions hereinbefore cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment,continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section306 read with Section 307, still there has to be a proximate prior actto clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of suchcontinuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finallydriven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively,‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series,that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictableact of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, oftendepends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded,definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is thetest to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuouslyharassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act oftaking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation 1028_Cri.Appln_1789_2024constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by whatgoes on in the mind of the victim. 23.The victim may have felt that there was no alternative oroption, but to take his life, because of what another person did orsaid; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultantabetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is theintention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible fromthe conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, whichin all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of theaccused and whether he intended by his action to at least possiblydrive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goadingthe victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether itcan be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case,as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case.The social status, the community setting, the relationship between theparties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case fromanother. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is aconscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person tosuicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section306.24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”;often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itselfbe found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment tosuicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respondand react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a fewrunaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extremestep of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and theperson responsible for it, at all times, without something more to 1128_Cri.Appln_1789_2024clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application ofthe penal provisions under Section 306.”Thus, taking note of the legal requirements now we will turntowards facts of the case. Most of the facts are already forming part ofsubmissions. We do not want to repeat them, unless we feel that therepetition is necessary. 7The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is thatthe applicants are not from the same age group or there is less possibility thatthey were the classmates. How they were knowing each other has not beenexplained either in First Information Report or in statements of witnesses. Inorder to call a person as a friend they should know each other. Since whenthese applicants and deceased Vikram knowing each other has also not beenstated. If at all Vikram was suffering from any physical problem, thenwhether instead of sharing that with mother or brother or any other familymember, whether he would share it with the friends and, that too, especiallyapplicant No.7 Mamta, who is a married lady. The said physical problem isstated to be related to sexual act. Of course, there is a certificate of Dr.Rajesh Rathi dated 07.03.2024 stating that deceased Vikram had visited hisClinic on 03.02.2022 for problem of erectile dysfunction (ed) and themedical information regarding this is inability to get or maintain and erection 1228_Cri.Appln_1789_2024long enough to have sexual intercourse. The certificate also states that afterthat visit i.e. 03.02.2022 Vikram had not visited the said Clinic and thetreatment that was prescribed was for one month. So whatever appears to bethe treatment or problem was of the year 2022 and the suicide has beencommitted on 19.11.2023. So there appears to be no proximity as such,taking into consideration these dates. Now, there is not a single document onrecord showing the scientific investigation to show that how the mobile ofdeceased was hacked. It appears that Investigating Officer has not taken helpof a cyber expert. His statement under Section 161 of the Code of CriminalProcedure has not been recorded. In the statement of sister taken on29.12.2023 i.e. after a period of about seven days of First Information Reportshe has stated about the role played by applicant No.8 Amol regardinghelping deceased in opening deceased’s account on Instagram and Facebook.Now, there is no document to show that when this Instagram and Facebookaccount was created. Hacking is possible only thereafter and not otherwise.Now, it is her statement that deceased had told her that accused Amol hasgiven the ID and password to other applicants and then there used to behacking of deceased’s mobile by all of them. The questions are again - As towhether they were watching the search history of deceased at the same timeand from whose mobile number or they were individually hacking it fromdifferent mobile numbers ? When was the last hacking that was done ? 1328_Cri.Appln_1789_2024Since when the applicants were allegedly blackmailing the deceased ? Theanswer of these questions is not in the entire charge sheet. It is hard tobelieve that for the said physical problem of erectile dysfunction (ed) thedeceased would have told it to applicant No.7, the married lady. Again, atthe cost of repetition, we would say that since when applicant No.7 wasknowing deceased is not coming forward. There is absolutely no evidenceregarding transfer of any amount directly to her but then it is stated thatamount was given to her husband and brother-in-law. If that amount wasdemanded as blackmailing, then why it was not told to the family members.He had opportunity to lodge a report regarding the blackmail. Small amountlike 500, 300 or even 3000 cannot be said to be the blackmailing amountunless a substantial amount is then shown. Further, the Investigating Officeras well as now prosecution are not coming with a case that, that transfer ofamount was an extortion and necessary sections have not been added. Theyare trying to project that since there was blackmailing and transfer of money,the deceased was forced to commit suicide. But, as aforesaid, in order toprove the abetment the active part in respect of each of the accused personsis necessary and there has to be a proximity. If such acts were going on sincelong and there is no evidence regarding the last transaction or last incident ofencountering of all the applicants and deceased, it will not amount to anabetment as contemplated under Section 107 as well as Section 306 of the 1428_Cri.Appln_1789_2024Indian Penal Code. 8We take the alleged suicide note as it is and at this stage presumethat it has been left by deceased on 19.11.2023; yet it lacks all those details.In the suicide note he has not stated about the role of applicant No.8 Amol asstated by sister in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. Rather in the suicide note he makes accused No.2 as mastermindand he has used the word ‘hang’ (ought to have been ‘hacked’). Hacking ofthe mobile is a different concept, which will not include knowledge aboutpassword and ID. Therefore, at one breath the prosecution intends to statethat Amol had knowledge about password and ID of deceased, who had thenallegedly shared it to the other accused persons. But then in the suicide notewhere it is stated to be hacked, then question of sharing or knowledge aboutpassword and ID will not arise. As regards applicant No.7, he has tried togive a different colour about his relationship with her and if that was theissue, then question of hacking by her together with other applicantsincluding her own husband also will not arise. He has also used the wordthat he has been defamed, because of his health problem. But, neither FirstInformation Report nor statements of brother, sister gives an indication thatthere was a defamation of deceased on that count. The defamation has to bemade public and when even the family members were not knowing as to 1528_Cri.Appln_1789_2024what has been alleged against the deceased’s health by these applicants, itcannot amount to defamation at all. Thus, perusal of entire materialincluding First Information Report in charge sheet would show that theingredients of offence were not getting attracted even prima facie and undersuch circumstance, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicantsare asked to face the trial. This is a fit case where the powers under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised. Hence, followingorder. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed.ii)The Charge Sheet No.36/2024 i.e. proceedings in Special CaseNo.16/2024 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Tq.Udgir, Dist. Latur, arising out of First Information Report vide CrimeNo.697/2023 dated 22.12.2023 registered with Rural Police Station, Udgir,for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 66(C) and 66(E) of the InformationTechnology Act, 2000 and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes andthe Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, stands quashedand set aside as against applicants viz. 1) Prasad Kalidas More, 2) Shailesh 1628_Cri.Appln_1789_2024Shivshankar Marwade, 3) Kaustubh Venkatrao Pawar, 4) Abhishek ShrikantSatale, 5) Arvind Gajanan Kholgadage, 6) Sachin Gajanan Kholgadage, 7)Mamta w/o Arvind Kholgadage, 8) Amol Ashok Kachare and RanveerRamchandra Natkare. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd
Arguments
228_Cri.Appln_1789_2024R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 8Amol Ashok Kachare,Age 24 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 9Ranveer Ramchandra Natkare,Age 23 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Rural Police Station, Udgir,Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 2Satyashila w/o Rajendra Balande,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Sambhaji Nagar,Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. … Respondents...Mr. G.D. Kale, Advocate for applicantsMrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondent No.1...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.DATE:21st AUGUST, 2025 328_Cri.Appln_1789_2024ORDER : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the Charge Sheet No.36/2024 i.e.the proceedings in Special Case No.16/2024 pending before learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, arising out of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.697/2023 dated 22.12.2023 registeredwith Rural Police Station, Udgir, for the offence punishable under Section 306read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 66(C)and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. G.D. Kale for applicants and learnedAPP Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar for respondent No.1. Learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 remained absent. 3Learned Advocate appearing for applicants has taken us throughthe entire charge sheet including First Information Report. Respondent No.2is mother of deceased Vikram Rajendra Balande and present applicants arestated to be the friends or friends’ friends. Learned Advocate for applicantssubmits that it is stated that deceased was suffering from some physical 428_Cri.Appln_1789_2024problem and he used to search for some videos on YouTube. Some of theapplicants came to know about the same and they had hacked the WhatsAppaccount, Google account, Facebook account and YouTube account of deceasedand they were blackmailing him. It was alleged that applicant No.2 Shaileshis the leader of applicants and they were mentally harassing deceasedVikram, however, First Information Report is silent since when theharassment was going on. It is only stated that since few days prior to FirstInformation Report when informant found that Vikram was under mentaltension, then she asked as to what has happened ? He then told her thatsome friends were giving mental harassment. He appears to have told thatapplicants were teasing him on the point of his physical problem (whichappears to be on sexual point). There was operation of the second son ofinformant on 19.11.2023 and, therefore, he was taken by the other relativesi.e. brother-in-law of informant and her elder sister to Hyderabad in YashodaHospital. On the next day i.e. around 10.00 a.m. on 20.11.2023 nephew ofrespondent No.2 gave call to brother-in-law of informant stating thatsomething has happened to Vikram and, therefore, they should go to thevillage. Immediately informant and her elder sister reached Udgir around8.30 p.m., whereupon it was told to informant that they will have to go toGovernment Hospital, Udgir. When already people had gathered there,informant realized that some untoward incident has happened and then it 528_Cri.Appln_1789_2024was disclosed to her that Vikram has committed suicide in the house. It isthen stated that Vikram had left two chits on the sofa in the house which waswritten on 19.11.2023, in which names of nine persons were disclosedstating that by hacking his accounts they had taken the personal informationof Vikram and blackmailing him. 4The applicants are not disputing that Vikram died due tohanging i.e. he committed suicide, but they are disputing that they hadabetted the commission of suicide. It appears that the chits have been sentfor Handwriting Expert’s opinion and even if we consider the contents ofchits were written by deceased Vikram; yet the contents do not show whenthe Facebook account or Google account or other accounts of deceasedVikram were hacked. The entire charge sheet would show that absolutely noscientific investigation in that respect has been carried out, so as to invokethe ingredients of offences under the Information Technology Act. In thealleged suicide note it is then stated that Vikram had suspicion that applicantNo.2 was the mastermind and problem was not going to be solved by givingmoney. The said things were going on since last many days. He had somehealth issue like weakness and for that purpose he used to search forinformation on Google. The applicants alleged to have misused theinformation and defamed him and, therefore, he has stated that he is 628_Cri.Appln_1789_2024committing suicide. In respect of applicant No.7 he has used abusivelanguage and then says that his reports were normal and he was going to becleared from health issue. He says that he came to know about the plan ofapplicants to make search of history of his search for Google and Facebook,but before that he has committed suicide. The second chit was addressed toyounger brother that he should take care of himself and their sister. Thecharge sheet also contains message given on WhatsApp to husband of sisterof deceased, wherein Vikram had informed that he would be committingsuicide and he has stated that sister should take revenge. It appears thatpolice have taken search of the history of accounts of deceased, but that isnot sufficient to prove that account was hacked. There appears to be somefinancial transactions through electronic mode between deceased andapplicants, but if we consider the amount, then it can be said to be friendlyadvances. The amount that has been shared is not even more thanRs.10,000/- at a single transaction. Amounts like 500, 700 and 300 havebeen repeatedly given. The documents showing the WhatsApp chat with oneRamdas Rathod would show that the deceased had asked him as to howmuch amount is due towards him (Paise kiti ahet tuze Ramdas). But thefurther conversation has no link and it was asked that the amount should begiven on PhonePe. Possibility of hand loan cannot be ruled out. Further, itappears that there is money transaction between applicant No.7 and